HASAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying that a writ of certiorari may be issued quashing the show-cause notice dated 18-12-1965 and the order dated February 16, 1966, passed by the Board of Revenue, Rajasthan, Ajmer, dismissing the petitioner from government service and subsequent orders of the State Government dated April 15, 1957 and June 29, 1970 dismissing the petitioner's appeal and review application respectively.

(2.) IN the year 1963, the petitioner was employed as a Nazir cum Accounts Clerk in Tehsil Jahajpur, District Bhilwara. On July 9, 1963, the Collector, Bhilwara, who was admittedly the Disciplinary Authority so far as the petitioner is concerned, issued a chargesheet to the petitioner along with a statement of allegations, wherein the petitioner was alleged to have made double payments/bogus payments and improper and illegal payments in respect of pre-April, 1950 revenue deposits to certain Jagirdars and Mafidars of Tehsil, Sahada, District Bhilwara. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence on February 19, 1964. The Collector Bhilwara appointed Shri D. C. Sharma, City Magistrate, Bhilwara, as the Enquiry Officer, in the case of the petitioner. It may be mentioned here that similar charges in respect of the very same payments was also brought against one Kalulal, who was then the Revenue Accountant at that place and Shri Fateh Singh Manav, Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhilwara, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer to inquire into the charges levelled against Kalu Lal. Shri D. C. Sharma, City Magistrate, Bhilwara, who was the Enquiry Officer, so far as the petitioner was concerned, in his enquiry report dated April 21, 1964 found charge No. 1 partially and charge No. 2 fully proved against the petitioner while charges Nos. 3 and 4 were found to be not established against him. Thereafter, the Collector, Bhilwara, considered the report of the Enquiry Officer and provisionally decided that the penalty of dismissal from service be imposed upon the petitioner and issued a show cause notice to him on January 14, 1965, giving him an opportunity to submit his representation in respect of the proposed punishment. After considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority, namely the Collector, Bhilwara, agreed with the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer and held that the petitioner was grossly negligent in the performance of his duties. However, the Collector was of the opinion that severe punishment was not called for against the petitioner in view of his past good record and long service and by his order dated 30-6-1965, he held that the ends of justice would be met if three grade increments were withheld with cumulative effect, in the case of the petitioner. The report of Shri Manav, Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhilwara, in respect of the enquiry conducted by him against Kalu Lal was also considered by the Collector, Bhilwara at the same time, along with the case of the petitioner and by the same order dated June 30,1965, the Collector awarded similar punishment to Kalulal. It appears that the petitioner was apparently satisfied as he did not prefer any appeal against the aforesaid order passed by the Collector, Bhilwara. However, the Chairman of the Revenue Board, invoking the powers under R. 32 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter called 'the Rules') gave a notice to the petitioner on December 18, 1965 to show-cause why the penalty imposed upon him by the Collector, Bhilwara, be not enhanced and the penalty of dismissal from service be not imposed upon him. I will have occasion to refer to this notice of enhancement a little later. The petitioner thereupon submitted his explanation on January 3, 1966 and the same was considered by the Chairman of the Board of Revenue, who thought that it was unsatisfactory and accordingly, the petitioner was dismissed from Government service with immediate effect by the order of the Chairman, Board of Revenue dated February 6,1966. A similar notice of enhancement was served upon Kalulal and by the same order of the Chairman, Board of Revenue dated February 16, 1966, he was also dismissed from government service. Thereupon, the petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the Chairman, Board of Revenue to the State Government which was dismissed by the order dated April 15, 1967, as the State Government agreed with the opinion of the Board of Revenue and the Public Service Commission. A review application by the petitioner was dismissed by the State Government on June 29, 1970 on the ground that it was not maintainable. IN these circumstances, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) THE question as to the extent to which the High Court may interfere in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution in matters relating to departmental enquiries was considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. G. S. Waishampayan (5) where Gajendragadkar J. , as he then was, speaking for the court observed - "it cannot be denied that when an order of dismissal passed against a public servant is challenged by him by a petition under Art. 226 it is for the High Court to consider whether the constitutional requirements of Art. 311 (2) have been satisfied or not. In such a case it would be idle to contend that the infirmities on which the public officer relies flow from the exercise of discretion vested in the enquiry officer. THE enquiry officer may have acted bona fide but that does not mean that the discretionary orders passed by him are final and conclusive. Whenever it is urged before the High Court that as a result of such orders the public officer has been deprived of a reasonable opportunity it would be open to the High Court to examine the matter and decide whether the requirements of Art. 311 (2) have been satisfied or not. In such matters it is difficult and inexpedient to lay down any general rules ; whether or not the officer in question has had a reasonable opportunity must always depend on the facts in each case. THE only general statement that can be safely made in this connection is that the departmental enquiries should observe rules of natural justice and that if they are fairly and properly conducted the decisions reached by the enquiry officers on the merits are not open to be challenged on the ground that the procedure followed was not exactly in accordance with that which is observed in Courts of law. . . . . . . . . " In arriving at the aforesaid conclusion, their Lordships relied upon the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in T. R. Verma's case (1 ).